Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Events

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

Aug. 25 — The recent influx of ERISA class action filings is forcing judges to decide a different
kind of dispute: one between competing plaintiffs’ attorneys who have, wittingly or
unwittingly, targeted the same defendant.

With more than 130 Employee Retirement Income Security Act class actions filed over
the past year, it was perhaps unavoidable that some defendants would face lawsuits
spearheaded by different plaintiffs’ attorneys. In these cases, judges are often the
ones to decide which plaintiffs’ firms will get to see the case through to completion—and
share in a potential multimillion-dollar settlement or judgment.

On Aug. 24, a federal judge in Maryland resolved a stand-off between two pairs of
plaintiffs’ firms, which each sued Bon Secours Health System Inc. for alleged ERISA
violations within a week of each other.

In
consolidating the lawsuits—which accuse the hospital of underfunding its pension plan because of
a mistaken reliance on ERISA’s “church plan” exemption—the judge appointed a sole
law firm, Washington-based Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, as counsel for the
proposed class of hospital workers.

In deciding among four different firms, the judge focused on which firms had more
experience litigating the relevant issues and which firms raised more “comprehensive”
claims in their complaints.

Earlier in August, both Cohen Milstein and its frequent litigation partner, Keller
Rohrback LLP,
won class counsel appointment in a consolidated lawsuit against Missouri-based Mercy Health. In that four-page
order, a federal judge denied class counsel status to the two other firms heavily
involved in this area, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and Izard Kindall & Raabe
LLP, despite noting that those firms would also be “adequate” representatives of the
proposed class.

These appointments in the Bon Secours and Mercy Health cases may be a sign of things
to come in other lawsuits challenging the pension plan management of large hospital
systems. The law firms involved in these cases have filed competing complaints against
six other hospitals, including Wheaton Franciscan, OSF Healthcare System, St. Joseph’s
Hospital and a different Mercy Health entity. Most of those lawsuits are in the early
phases of consolidation, and disputes over class counsel are likely to come in the
future.

Spectrum of Cases

It’s not just church plan cases that can raise the possibility of standoffs between
ERISA-focused plaintiffs’ attorneys.

On Aug. 19, a federal judge
consolidated two recently filed cases challenging the inclusion of stock from Valeant Pharmaceuticals
in the retirement plan for Walt Disney Co. workers. In that case, the plaintiffs filed
a
joint motion for three separate law firms to serve as interim class counsel. The judge denied
the motion without prejudice, saying that an appointment wasn’t necessary “merely
to maintain the status quo.”

These same questions may come to a head in the recent spate of lawsuits against university
retirement plans. St. Louis-based Schlichter Bogard & Denton filed proposed class
actions against 12 different universities, and one of the universities—Columbia—was
hit with another lawsuit, filed by employment law firm Sanford Heisler.

Those cases are still in the early stages of litigation.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington at
jwille@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at
jmeyer@bna.com

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)